You're moving the bars. In fact, these bars are so laughably low, I don't know that we're having the same conversation any more. Nobody's saying it can't write

You're moving the bars. In fact, these bars are so laughably low, I don't know that we're having the same conversation any more. Nobody's saying it can't write "sensible code at rates much greater than random chance." We're not competing with an army of typing monkeys here. We're saying it actually doesn't "know" anything, and regularly demonstrates that quality, despite it seeming very much like something that knows things, most of the time. You're being tricked by a clever algorithm. > All Modern NNs are much more blank slate than the brain has been for at least millions of years. All well and good if we were talking about interesting research and had millions of years to let these algorithms prove themselves out, I suppose. But we're talking about industries that are being created out of whole cloth and/or destroyed, depending on where you stand, and the time frame is in single-digit years, if not less. And these things will still confidently make elementary mistakes and get lost in their own context. Look, they're obviously not useless, but they're a tool with weaknesses and strengths. And people like pg who are acting like there ARE no weaknesses, or that a simple application of will and money will erase them, they are selling us a bill of goods.